[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10253-S10254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE EPA'S PENDING NOX EMISSIONS RULE
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 16, 1997, President Clinton directed
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its nitrogen oxide
(NOX) transport standards under the Clean Air Act.
Subsequently, on November 7, 1997, the EPA announced a proposed ozone
transport rule to reduce the regional transport of ground-level ozone
across a 22-state region of the eastern United States, and the agency
is now poised to announce its final ruling on NOX emissions
and ozone transport. The 22 states that have been targeted by this rule
are some of the nation's most heavily populated, and include a large
concentration of major industries, utilities, and automobiles.
Based on past experience, it is not surprising that the Environmental
Protection Agency has, once again, decided to pursue a heavy-handed and
arbitrary approach toward its regulation of NOX emissions.
While the EPA argues that its recommendations reflect the cooperative
work of 37 states through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
process, OTAG actually recommended a range of options to be considered
on a state-by-state basis. The EPA, in its proposed rule, has chosen
the most extreme of those recommendations--an 85% reduction in
NOX emissions within the 22-state region. Far from being a
flexible, tailored reduction for individual states based on their own
contributions to the problem of ozone and air quality, this is a
draconian, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control approach and does not
take into account regional differences. I am concerned that this plan,
which is apparently based on insufficient scientific information, poses
potentially substantial harm to the economies of the affected states
without delivering on the substantial environmental benefits it claims.
A key concern with the EPA's recommendation is that it is based on
modeling results that are inconsistent with modeling conducted by OTAG.
The EPA has made a finding that Midwest and Appalachian states
significantly contribute to nonattainment in the downwind states. The
OTAG modeling actually concluded that the air-borne transport of ozone
is only a major concern within a radius of 150 miles of the emission
source. Using the OTAG results, emissions of nitrogen oxide from the
Midwest and Ohio Valley simply do not affect ozone levels in the
Northeast at a significant level, and the suggestion that emissions
from the Mississippi area affect the eastern seaboard is even more
unjustified by the empirical evidence. The OTAG modeling indicates that
the greatest contributions to the ozone problem in the Northeast are
emissions from sources in the Northeast and, particularly, from the
growing numbers of automobiles congesting the roads and filling the air
with their fumes. As my colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island
and Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in an
April 16, 1997, letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, ``Contrary
to a public belief too readily accepted without any evidentiary
foundation, our problem does not come primarily from distant
smokestacks in the Ohio River Valley.''
Recommendations based on OTAG's modeling ranged from targeted
reductions only in specified non-attainment locations to the EPA's
extreme choice of an 85% reduction across the board in all states. If
the EPA forces the so-called ``upwind'' states like West Virginia,
Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia to reduce their emissions by
the recommended 85%, the effect will be economically harmful, yet will
do little in the long run to reduce the Northeast's ozone problem or
improve its overall air quality. This recommendation is neither
equitable nor cost-effective.
The consequences of the EPA's decision for the Midwest and
Appalachian states will be severe. For example, my own state of West
Virginia is currently in compliance for ozone. West Virginians are
proud of this record and are working hard to maintain a clean
environment. Unfortunately, however, despite this commendable record of
compliance, the EPA is proposing that West Virginia reduce its
NOX emissions by a whopping 44%. This is a huge overnight
shift in policy--from compliance to gross under-compliance in the
twinkle of an eye--which would force significant, costly changes to
industries and utilities in my state, but for what purpose? For what
purpose?
Mr. President, studies conducted by industry officials estimate that
it will cost $500 billion for every 10% decrease in NOX
emissions, costs that will be passed onto consumers. If the EPA's
proposal is implemented, electricity rates will climb precipitously in
States like West Virginia, but this sacrifice reportedly will do little
to improve air quality in the Northeast. According to a recent study by
the Alliance for Clean Air Policy (ACAP), the EPA's 85% reduction will
require an initial investment of $6 billion and an annual compliance
cost of $1.2 billion by utilities in the 22-State region. Other
industry cost estimates are even larger. Businesses and consumers in
the Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southeastern States will bear the bulk
of these costs. Electric power utilities will be forced to install
selective catalytic reduction equipment on a large number of existing
plants, but there is little experience in the United States with the
use of this type of technology. What we do know is that selective
catalytic reduction, SCR, technology is extremely costly and will
require difficult retrofitting for many powerplants over a period of
several years in order to meet the EPA's recommended reductions. By all
appearances, the emissions reductions mandated by the EPA in the
Midwestern and Appalachian region are unjustified and they are unfair.
We sometimes forget that, too often, bureaucratic rules have major
impacts on a personal level. Electricity rates in West Virginia and the
Midwest are considerably lower than those of the Northeast. If the EPA
issues its rule forcing States to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by
85%, Midwest and Appalachian utility rates will rise significantly.
Meanwhile, as much of the United States is enjoying the benefits of a
strong economy, the Appalachian region is still struggling to pull
itself, in some areas, out of poverty. In recent years, West Virginia
has aggressively sought out and won new business opportunities.
Toyota is making a very important announcement even today, within the
next hour, of additional plans that it has for its plant in Putnam
County, WV.
West Virginians who previously had to leave the State for career
opportunities are now able to come back home to well-paying jobs that
can comfortably support their families. If this stiff new rule goes
into effect, families in West Virginia will find it harder to pay their
electric bills; retirees on small pensions will face choices that could
threaten their health and well-being; and companies, facing narrower
profit margins, may consider moving their operations elsewhere because
they would no longer receive the benefits of low-cost electricity.
Further, communities that have invested in new infrastructure and have
strained to help grow new and existing businesses could see their
economic base dwindle. I am weary of regulations that lead to
unnecessary economic dislocation. I want to be sure that the citizens
of Appalachia can afford to heat and light their homes, and that they
can receive reliable, consistent service from their utilities. I also
want to be sure that each State recognizes and takes responsibility for
its own air quality standards. But, I do not believe that a few States
should have to shoulder the economic burdens for the EPA's hypothetical
air quality improvements.
[[Page S10254]]
Certainly, there are better, more scientifically and economically
sound alternatives to the severe rule proposed by the EPA. A number of
alternative proposals have been submitted that are projected to reduce
NOX emissions and at the same time meet the attainment of
the new 8-hour ozone standard in many states earlier than currently
scheduled. In fact, 13 Governors have submitted alternative strategies
for addressing this important issue. These alternative proposals
include one by a group of six Governors, led by West Virginia Governor
Cecil Underwood, who have submitted a very comprehensive proposal.
Other similar alternative proposals have been submitted individually by
the Governors of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Wisconsin. These alternative plans share the same
core elements and represent aggressive steps to achieve a significant
reduction in NOX emissions.
The alternative recommendation put forth by the aforementioned
coalition of six Governors representing West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio,
Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia is a very comprehensive proposal. The
first phase recommends a 55 percent reduction of NOX
emissions by April 2002, followed by a 65 percent reduction in
NOX emissions by April 2004. This alternative would also
require significant reductions from other large non-utility sources by
April 2003. By contrast, the EPA proposed an overall 85 percent
reduction from major utility sources, 70 percent from major industries,
and 50 percent from small industries by May 2003--a target few
companies anticipate meeting without substantial costs. The EPA's
compliance schedule also may threaten the reliability of electrical
supplies in these and adjacent States.
In the second phase, the coalition plan calls for assessing the
reductions that will be necessary to meet the new EPA-mandated 8-hour
ozone standard by 2009--3 years ahead of the EPA's schedule of 2010-
2012. As proposed, the assessment will be completed by 2001, the
control requirements established by 2003, and additional controls in
place in a reasonable period by 2007.
I support initiatives like those put forth by the 13 Governors. They
demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and have numerous advantages. A
phased approach would avoid disruption in the reliability of
electricity services and would achieve substantial cost savings for
businesses and consumers. In recognition of the limited impact of long-
distance ozone transport, NOX controls for achieving the 8-
hour emission standard should be tailored at the local, State, and
regional levels. The phased approach builds upon the OTAG
recommendations for addressing regional transport concerns and would
encourage allowance trading as a compliance tool. Finally, a phased
approach would be consistent with the Clean Air Act requirements and
would allow States to take the lead in developing technically sound
strategies for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.
Clearly, alternative proposals exist that are achievable and that
would provide cleaner air for millions of Americans sooner than would
be provided in the Clean Air Act, without the adverse economic
consequences that appear inevitable as a result of the EPA's proposal.
Moreover, these types of alternative approaches are consistent with the
July 1997 Presidential Directive calling for a flexible, common-sense
approach to address this important and complex issue.
The Governors have worked to craft reasonable, science-based,
balanced, and cost-effective proposals. I hope that the White House
will recognize the spirit of cooperation and commitment that these
Governors have made to air quality standards that address both the
environmental and the economic interests of their States and
surrounding States.
I also hope that these alternative proposals are given serious
consideration before any final action is taken to issue a new rule. Let
us not get in too big a hurry here. If a compromise is not reached
regarding this very important matter, I am concerned that it will be
tied up in the courts and thus prevent the States from taking the
actions to which they have committed themselves, while also delaying a
real, beneficial reduction of nitrogen oxide. Mr. President, I urge the
administration to work with the Governors to reach an environmentally
and economically sound and common-sense solution that is in the
interest of our Nation as a whole.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
____________________